Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Matthew 12:4

"how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?" — Matthew 12:4 (ASV)

The use of counterquestion and appeal to Scripture was common in rabbinic debates (cf. v.5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31). The account to which Jesus refers is from 1 Samuel 21:1–6. David entered the tabernacle at Nob, and he and his companions ate what should only have been eaten by the priests and did so after lying to the priest about their mission.

The argument takes a common rabbinical form, namely, the juxtaposition of two apparently contradictory statements from Scripture in order to draw a conclusion regarding regulations for conduct. On the one hand, David ate; on the other, it was unlawful for him to do so. Jesus’ point is not simply that rules admit of exceptions but that the Scriptures themselves do not condemn David for his action; therefore the rigidity of the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law is not in accord with Scripture itself, for they could not explain the incident of David.

How, then, does this apply to Jesus and his disciples? They were not desperate and famished, unlike David and his men. It is not even clear how they were breaking any OT law, where commandments about the Sabbath were aimed primarily at regular work. It seems that Jesus used the David incident not merely to question the Pharisees’ view of the Sabbath; rather, he was questioning their approach to the law itself.

There is more. In the incident to which Jesus referred, regulations (even of the written law) were set aside for David “and his companions.” Is there not therefore a case for setting aside regulations for Jesus and those with him? This analogy holds good only if Jesus is at least as special as David, and it is to this conclusion that the argument builds in the following verses.